Thomas Hobbes and His Proposed Laws of Nature in Criminal Law

Starting with the first law states that we should explore peace, and if we are unable to obtain that goal, then we should use the full force of war. The first law contributes to Law of Nature that is discovered through reason. Such a law affirms human self-preservation and condemns acts destructive to human life. An example can be like to seeking peace because to obtain peace is to fulfill our natural right to defend ourselves.

Hobbes second law builds on to the first law we talked about how in the second law it states that people should lay down our rights of nature and form civil contracts if others are willing as well. The second law contributes to in which men can exchange their privileges of nature between one another and which frames the premise of good commitment. With the authorization of every one of these laws, which go about as obstacles towards the full right of a person's directly of nature, also an individual can exchange a bit of their directly of nature, so they can advance collaboration between others around them. So, an example can be like I give up my right to pay you if you give up your right to pay me. This is indicating that people will give up their rights only when others are willing to do the same in return.

But in Hobbes judgement he thinks that these are not enough to keep human kind from being dishonest to one another. So, what he said is that “there needs to be another layer of control, and this is where the third law comes into play. The third law comes in to fully form the concept of justice. What the third law is that males need to perform their valid agreement. This law of nature is the establishment for the idea of 'Equity.' But in light of the human want for power, there is constantly motivator to break the agreement, in spite of the rationale of the third law and the characteristic order to protect our very own lives this would be an example of the third law.

Hobbes fourth law is to show people who have maintained and also enforcing the contract. So, in the future no one would have an issue of regretting to comply with the contract. For example, that every human being should follow in order to give them the best chance of living well as well as investigating the full requirements of justice.

My last point for Hobbes fifth law states that we should suit others to protect the agreement and not fight about minor issues in the case that the agreement might breakdown and might cause a significant problem to others. For example, when the government fails to protect their natural rights for the interests of the society, citizens can withdraw their obligations to obey.

Hobbes had more than just 5 main laws he had up to nineteen commands, which shows a Significant change in the society for example we can look at to seek peace, laying down the right to all things and enforcing power to a sovereign, obeying the social contract, promoting the attitudes conducive to civil peace, all of these actions are really well contributed to Hobbes theory of natural law.

Moving on to each of the proposed (or actual) laws listed below and I will be summarizing what Hobbes view would have been for each one of them. Prepare arguments for or against each actual or proposed law based on this view. Be sure to support your answers with references to the theories of Thomas Hobbes.

1. A proposed law to equip all cars with breathalyzer sensor systems that require drivers to pass a breathalyzer test before operating the vehicle.
2. An amendment in law that would permit euthanasia without medical intervention/doctor assistance.
3. A proposed law that requires all citizens to be computer-chipped with a tracking device.
4. A proposed law that requires that all children attend centralized, public schools.
5. A proposed law that permits judges to order the sterilization of convicted criminals.
6. A proposed law that would eliminate lawyers from courtrooms.
7. A proposed law that would criminalize tobacco and alcohol.

Starting with a proposed law to equip all cars with breathalyzer sensor systems that require drivers to pass a breathalyzer test before operating the vehicle. In this scenario Hobbes POV on this point would have been he would argue that the government had absolute power over its subjects. This would come in big effect to people in the society. He thinks people should be fair and reasonable with each other having a breathalyser before operating a vehicle is potentially going against their will and rights. Peoples jobs are to protect themselves from each other and also helping each other out as this is so they can advance collaboration between others around them. Talking a breathalyser test is only for people that authorities use on if they believe that specific induvial is under the influence, and this is how authorities use their power and their rights as one of Hobbes law was to obtain power and use your rights on others. Hobbes wanted to show how Society is a population beneath an authority, to whom all individuals in that society covenant just enough of their natural rights to the authority to be able to ensure internal peace and common defense. 

Moving to an amendment in law that would permit euthanasia without medical intervention/doctor assistance. Thomas Hobbes believed human beings were selfish and destructive by nature, and if left to their own devices would regularly be at war and in disorder for their own wealth. Considering Thomas Hobbes developed his ideals within the Seventeenth century, it is difficult to say where his stance would be on various modern laws, except euthanasia, Thomas Hobbes would not have been in favour of legalizing euthanasia Hobbes felt humanity needed laws in place to limit their careless impulses, seen in his views surrounding a social contract. Hobbes and John Locke clearly disagreed the right of every human being to take their own life. Hobbes claims in his popular book the Leviathan that natural law forbids every man 'to do, that which is destructive of his life, or take away the means of preserving the same.' Thomas Hobbes was not well appreciated about people taking their own lives.

Third proposed or actually law: A proposed law that requires all citizens to be computer-chipped with a tracking device. Thomas Hobbes view on this would be a social contract where he talks about people should be free. What the social contract is, Implicit agreement, in political logic, a real or speculative minimal, or assentation, between the ruled and their rulers, characterizing the rights and obligations of each. According to the theory, people were naturally introduced to an anarchic condition of nature, which was glad or despondent as per the specific adaptation. They at that point, by practicing normal reason, shaped a general public (and a legislature) by methods for an agreement among themselves. Hobbes view on this was that the “the mutual transferring of right”. In the state of nature, every single human being has the right to do everything- there are no restrictions to the right of natural liberty. In other words, the social contract is the agreement by which every human being mutually transfer their natural right. In this case have a computer-chipped with a tracking device was totally irrelevant for Hobbes view on the social contract.

A proposed law that requires that all children attend centralized, public schools. Know Hobbes view on this scenario is human life, he talked about his education, his writing style, why he became a philosopher etc. All of these things contribute that Hobbes was encouraging children to go to school without being terrified by anything, and purse what every career they are interested in going in to. But at the end he wants everyone to have a better education and a better understanding to what they are learning in school and how they can intemperate that in reality.

Moving on a proposed law that permits judges to order the sterilization of convicted criminals. Hobbes view on this is really interesting the custom comprehends Hobbes to dismiss the view that subjects approve the sovereign to rebuff them for transgressing the law. Rather, the custom comprehends Hobbes to recognize the directly to rebuff with the sovereign's directly of war, a characteristic right that just the sovereign holds upon the establishment of a Commonwealth. On the customary record, the directly to rebuff isn't a basic quality of power; rather, the directly to incur discipline has a place, not to the workplace of sway, however to the regular individual who holds the workplace. This thesis challenges the conventional elucidation by belligerence that the directly to rebuff, for Hobbes, isn't uncommon. The directly to rebuff, similar to all privileges of sway, is fake; it is a correct that has a place with the workplace of the agent of the Commonwealth. The test to the convention is presented through taking care of three focal issues that set up the fundamentals of a hypothesis of discipline: I) the establishment of the state's entitlement to rebuff; ii) the method of reasoning or legitimization of the act of discipline; and iii) the principled imperative on the state's entitlement to rebuff. So, what this is trying to say is that Hobbes view on the judge to use sterilization on convicted criminals is not relevant instead using a different method is preferable.

Moving on to a proposed law that would eliminate lawyers from courtrooms. Hobbes perspective on this is that rather than the standard complexity of Hobbes, the adversary to the cases of heart, and Locke, the safeguard of the privileges of still, conscience, he demonstrates that Hobbes found a spot for still, conscience inside the law-the privileges of respondents to a jury of their decision, and the privileges of members of the jury to a decision as indicated by their still, conscience though Locke found a spot for soul outside the law, in the judgment of progressives when an unrest is legitimate or effective. In expounding Hobbes' perspectives on preliminary by jury, the creator recommends that the best criminological representation for inner voice is a legal hearer (instead of the more regular ones of an observer, a judge or a lawmaker). Still, conscience is emotional assurance, risky outside an institutional setting, however crucial for choices not founded on verifiable learning, for example, a member of the jury's decision past sensible uncertainty. So what Hobbes is really trying to tell us is that Hobbes believe that Having a lawyer will help that individual that is convicted of a crime should be guilty in fact have evidence to indicated that this individual is not guilty.

Finally, Hobbes view on a proposed law that would criminalize tobacco and alcohol. Hobbes does not speak to any mind-autonomous great, regular human telos, or intrinsic human feelings. Rather he accepts a subjectivist hypothesis of significant worth and a self-absorbed hypothesis of human inspiration. A few pundits, in any case, the question that his laws of nature can be built from such inadequate material. Hobbes, at last, legitimizes the acknowledgment of good laws by the way that they advance self-safeguarding. In any case, as Hobbes himself recognizes, not every person leans towards survival over normal freedom. In this paper, I demonstrate that Hobbes can contend that the craving for self-protection is objectively required by altering his subjectivist hypothesis of the great to like what is useful for an operator just with the fulfillment of wants (for her own life) that she has at the time that they are fulfilled. It is along these lines nonsensical to lean toward posthumous greatness over survival since a specialist must be alive for brilliance to have any an incentive for her. So, Hobbes here is really speaking out to people behaviour and their power of use. But Hobbes also states that if they see this happening a lot and causing lots of implications then having a law to stop these illegal uses out of the reach of every human being.

Bibliography

1. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmeth/.
2. SparkNotes. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/terms/.